COMMENT 1: (1)There are a few atheists who argue that design in the universe is not real but appears as real.Most of the peoples perceive it as real. So the perception error belongs to a few atheists that is an exception which proves the rule. Of course there are perception errors . But that in no way proves all perceptions are in errors. An elephant appears black and huge. Is it a perception error? You state : “It is known in brain sciences even we our senses can fool sometimes”. Correct. Some times -not always! .
RESPONSE 1: Another VOLTE-FACE. See what you had written before
1."പ്രപഞ്ചം ആസൂത്രണം ചെയ്യപ്പെട്ടതുപോലെ തോന്നുന്നു'' എന്നു തന്നെയാണല്ലോ ഞാനെഴുതിയത്. ഇത് appearance ആണെന്നും reality അല്ലെന്നുമാണ് ഡോക്കിന്സിന്റെ വാദം. എന്നാല് appearance ഉം reality യും ഒന്നാണെന്ന് സമര്ത്ഥിക്കുന്നതോടൊപ്പം ഡോക്കിന്സിന്റെ വാദങ്ങളെ ഖണ്ഡിക്കുക കൂടി ചെയ്യുന്നതാണ് എന്റെ പഠനങ്ങള് . അതിനാല് appearance reality ആകണമെന്നില്ല എന്ന താങ്കളുടെ വാദത്തിന് യാതൊരു പ്രസക്തിയുമില്ല.
What is the difference between bold statements in your comment (quoted in comment 1) and my response (in my last post) cited above ?
Mr. Hussain, if you are doing VOLTE-FACE like this, there is no way we can proceed with a healthy discussion.
You also have consciously avoided to respond to your another volte-face which was caught in my last post and given below. What is your stand on this or you flip-flopped again ?
COMMENT 2: 5. ദൈവത്തിന് ആരംഭമില്ലെന്ന് ഞാന് സമര്ത്ഥിച്ചിട്ടേയില്ല.
RESPONSE 2: Then what the heck does the below sentence mean ? I have been following up (asking for evidence for eternalness) many times only based on this concluding sentence by you.
ആസ്തിക്യവാദപ്രകാരം ദൈവത്തിന് ആരംഭമില്ല.ആരംഭമില്ലാത്തതിനു കാരണം ആവശ്യമില്ലെന്ന തത്വചിന്തിലെ പ്രാഥമികവിവരം പോലും ഡോക്കിന്സിനില്ല
Thanks for this big VOLTE-FACE. Then how was your God originated/created ?
COMMENT 3: You suggest two books ‘Phantoms in the brain: probing the mysteries of the human mind’‘by V. S. Ramachandran, Sandra Blakeslee and ‘ The man who mistook his wife for a hat and other clinical tales’‘by Oliver W. Sacks. But these books have nothing to favor your argument
RESPONSE 3: I gave these references to show perception isn't always same as reality and our modes of perception and cognition can fail us sometimes. This is what you also agree now by saying.
You state : “It is known in brain sciences even we our senses can fool sometimes”. Correct. Some times -not always! .
COMMENT 4: More over I have read at least 100 books (most of which is published by Oxford , Cambridge and MIT Presses) on perception and cognition problems alone( ALL THESE ARE IN MY PERSONEL COLLECTION and I am ready to provide you for reading).Just imagine how many books I would had browsed for other topics.
RESPONSE 4: Good collection. But as long as you are looking for outlier observations and cherry picking evidence to suit your purpose and push your agenda, i amn't sure what is its utility. I would consider them as a dead weight, wastage of natural resources (trees for printing paper) and aids you to commit injustice to the unfortunate young readers (mostly from Muslim community) by exposing them to these wonderful fields for first time through your writings .
COMMENT 5: (2)Concrete or scientific evidence technically means experimental evidence( all these I had explained in my first post). You cannot prove that Mr.Bertrand Russel was/is atheist/agnostic scientifically.
RESPONSE 5: Since you use material as a meaning for concrete, (Quoting you: ദൈവം concrete ആയ material അല്ലാത്തതിനാല് ദൈവാസ്തിത്വത്തിന് concrete evidence (മുര്ത്തമായ തെളിവ്) ഉണ്ടാകില്ലെന്ന് ഞാന് detailed ആയി സമര്ത്ഥിച്ചതാണ്.) why don't you consider writings/biography/public acts/autobiography by Russell as a proof that he is an atheist/agnostic ?
You are choosing different meaning for concrete/material/scientific to suit your argument. Then what was the scientific evidence you used to say -
പ്രപഞ്ചത്തിലെ design ന് പിന്നില് ഒരു designer അനുമാനിക്കുന്നതാണ് chance നെ കാരണമാക്കുന്നതിനേക്കാള് logical, rational and scientific എന്നാണ് ഞാന് സമര്ത്ഥിച്ചത്. ?
Since you don't think Russell can be proved to be atheist/agnostic, i have one simple question ?
Why should the readers of this blog believe in what you write here and else where (supporting creationism) is really what you think and believe and you are not a charlatan who is doing only for business reasons ?
What evidence can you show them ?
COMMENT 6:(5)20th century cosmology proved the basic tenet of religions that universe has an origin which clearly disproves the basic tenet of materialism that the universe had no beginning. So whether the atheists are with science or with 19th century materialism-that was my question .
See Jack Rabbits reply :” Rationalist way of thinking is not something which is etched in stone and beyond self-correction compared to religious dogma. It reflects the availability of scientific evidence. In a similar manner, even after two centuries worth of evidence on evolution, creationism/religion still doesn't accept it. Why don't you call that അശാസ്ത്രീയം ? This shows that you are cherry picking the scientific evidence to suit your purpose and push your agenda.”
Is this an answer to my question?
RESPONSE 6: I can't help if you aren't able to understand it. You only select the statement - Big bang theory states universe originated from a microscopic state and underwent massive expansion - to show big bang supported creationism and refutes rationalism. What i am saying is that, you are selecting this part "universe has an origin" and discards everything what cosmology has to say about the later evolution (spatial and temporal) of universe (as it contradicts with religious books).
For eg: religious books and believers (at early 20th century and some even now) thought God created world in 6 or 8 days and he populated with living beings. This was in total contradiction with existing knowledge of cosmology/biology/geology. This is what i call cherry picking the scientific evidence and claim scientific support for religious scriptures.
You are treating rationalism and scientific thinking as two different water-tight compartments. But core of rationalist thought is derived from scientific observations and conclusions on the origin and nature of universe. When there was no empirical evidence on the expansion of universe, there was no reason to think so unless one is a scriptural literalist. But when it was found, rationalists adopted that view. You may even say new scientific evidence can disprove existing science, so science itself should be called unscientific. (More on this in response 12)
FYI, as i said before, Rationalist way of thinking is not something which is etched in stone and beyond self-correction compared to religious dogma. It tries to adopt the best possible conclusions on the origin and nature of universe.
COMMENT 7: No, he is raising another question. He says evolution is scientific and but religion does not accept it and why I do not lament it as unscientific.
My answer: Darwinism is not a scientific theory; it is “a metaphysical research programme” as phrased by the great philosopher of science Karl Popper. (If you are ready for a discussion, please read my three books on Darwinism and make a refutation of any single point)
RESPONSE 7: What i am saying is that, you are picking "universe has an origin" from science and discards everything what science has to say about the later evolution (spatial and temporal) of universe (as it contradicts with religious books).
I think you are living in a time warp. Even NON-SCIENTIFIC BODIES like Catholic Pope in Vatican (statement quoted below)
Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies – which was neither planned nor sought – constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory
and judicial courts in US rule in favor of evolution against the Christian creationists (with whom you agree) based on overwhelming evidence.
(quoting you -ക്രിസ്ത്യന് സൃഷ്ടിവാദക്കാരുടെ കൃതികള് റഫറന്സായി നല്കിയതു പരാമര്ശിച്ച് അവരുമായി യോജിക്കുന്നുണ്ടോ എന്നും റാബിറ്റ് ചോദിക്കുന്നു. സൃഷ്ടി എന്ന സങ്കല്പ്പം ആരുടേതായാലും സമാനതയെ സൂചിപ്പിക്കുന്നു. വിശദാംശങ്ങളിലെ വ്യത്യാസങ്ങളിലല്ല പൊതുവായ സമാനതകളിലാണ് എന്റെ ശ്രദ്ധ.)
This issue was exclusively discussed with with Prof. Wahid in another post who also doubts evolution asked in similar lines
Prof. Wahid said,
Instead, you should have thought that if the study gives convincing scientific proof of evolution, why the scientist(s) didn’t get a Nobel? The origin of life and forms of life is one of the most important areas of scientific research since long. So far no evolutionist has presented scientifically convincing proof of evolution and that is why evolutionary biology has remained as of today Nobel-sterile field.
My reply ...
I guess you know there is no Nobel prize for biology. It is given for Physiology and medicine. Instead Swedish academy gives Crafoord Prize in astronomy, mathematics, biosciences and geosciences in a rotating scheme to complement those for which the Nobel Prizes are awarded.
If you take a look at the list of laureates for biosciences (so far only 8 prizes were given, 50% of them were given to evolutionary biologists)
2007 Robert Trivers
1999 John Maynard Smith, Ernst Mayr, George C. Williams
1993 William D Hamilton
1990 Edward O. Wilson
They are doyens in the field of evolutionary biology. So your argument that evolutionary biology has remained as of today a Nobel-sterile field doesn't hold any water. This shows the recognition and acceptance it has among the scientific community.
Prof. Wahid left the discussion without continuing much further citing time shortage.
Since you are a Popper fan, let me ask you one thing. If evolution was wrong, why isn't there a single fossil found which appear in out of time order in available fossil record. This could have easily falsified evolution.
COMMENT 8: (6)First part of your narration is not an answer to my argument. Concerning your second part, to my knowledge, there are no specific answers for these questions in religious texts. Hence open to accept available scientific theories.
RESPONSE 8: Is this another VOLTE-FACE or sign of cracking up ? You replied in comment 7 above, that evolution is wrong and you have written 3 books to refute it and asked me to read them.
This is what i wrote (this is third time now)
Scientists aren't looking for simple YES/NO or TRUE/FALSE answers. Both accounts (science vs religion) differ in every detail. Let us know what religion has to say
a) How long it took to create or how old is the universe ?
b) What was the order and distribution of creation (physical and biological world/universe) ?
On the above two aspects given as a and b, creation/intelligent-design proposals fail miserably with evidence in hand.
Now you are saying, you are open to accept available scientific theories. What does this mean ? You will accept available theories in cosmology and evolutionary biology as this is what is covered in two questions (a and b) given above.
COMMENT 9: (7) The explanation given by evolutionary anthropologists on the origin of religious nature in no way reduces the validity of religious concepts. Why are you talking about male nipples which have No known biological function of milking? Moreover, the homosexuality research is based on Alfred Kinsey’s fraudulent findings.
RESPONSE 9: It seems you haven't understood what i wrote.
Scientists in those fields (evolutionary anthropology) have explanation for the origin of religious thought. They conclude religious belief is an evolutionary by-product. For eg: just because males have two nipples doesn't mean we should try to use/milk them. On a similar note, homosexuality is found in nature among animals. Would you suggest there is no need for its ban in Islamic societies since it is a fact and part of nature ? In philosophy, this is called as naturalistic fallacy. Just because something is found in nature or if humans have a pre-disposition based on evolutionary past doesn't mean we need to adopt or encourage it.
It means we have a natural explanation of why we believe in super-natural gods and there is no need to reason it based on any messiah or prophets and their revelations. They also show this belief has lot of overlap in different communities including hunter-gatherer societies living today. That means no religion can claim superiority why their super-natural gods are better than others.
The example of male nipples and homosexuality is to show things which are natural, but we don't make it a point to use/enforce them.
You are quoting Alfred Kinsey (who did research mostly on humans was dead in 1950s) to show homosexuality research among animals is fraudulent. This proves my earlier statement - I think you are living in a time warp. Check this and this to know more about homosexuality in animal world.
My question was would you suggest to revoke ban on homosexuality in Islamic societies on the same way as you are claiming innateness of teleological thinking supports need for creationist belief since both are a fact and part of nature ?
This is why i wrote, in philosophy, this is called as naturalistic fallacy. Just because something is found in nature or if humans have a pre-disposition based on evolutionary past doesn't mean we need to adopt or encourage it.
COMMENT 10: (8) Your words “Epicurus in Greece could easily prove such a God doesn't exist”.Can you explain how he proved that God did not exist?
RESPONSE 10: This is what i wrote before in my last post.
NOBODY in the 2800 year old history of Philosophy (from axial age to current) was able to give a logically coherent concept of God with infinite abilities (eternal, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, infinitely compassionate) who also intervenes in our daily life and co-exist with evil around. Even before the era of Christ/Muhammed, Epicurus in Greece could easily prove such a God doesn't exist.
"Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. If God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?" — Epicurus, as quoted in 2000 Years of Disbelief
If you aren't able to see the issue of logical contradictions (compared to concept of God stated above) raised by Epicurus, i cannot help.
COMMENT 11: Your conclusion “I am finally repeating what i said before - Perhaps in the past, you have only encountered an audience as in local print edition of Prabhodhanam/Madhyamam. Please wake up to reality, what you are writing here is read by educated readers from all over the world”.
Can you suggest a single research article on any subject from any of malayalam atheist/rationalist journals for the last 10 0r 20 years ? Can you suggest a single research article from any of english atheist/rationalist journals for the last 20 years?
RESPONSE 11: This shows what i wrote in my last post was true.
RESPONSE 6: This shows you don't know the philosophy of science and how science is practiced in real life.
You are assuming (as i stated before in this post in Response 6) rationalism and scientific thinking as two different water-tight compartments. But core of rationalist thought is derived from scientific observations and conclusions on the origin and nature of universe.
There are hundreds of reputed journals in different fields. People publish their research findings in them and not in any special atheist/rational journal.
അപ്പൂട്ടൻ has also replied on this issue.
COMMENT 12: (9)ജീവശാസ്ത്രം,ഗോളശാസ്ത്രം, തത്ത്വചിന്ത, മനഃശാസ്ത്രം, രാഷ്ട്രമീമാംസ, മാധ്യമപഠനം, പുരാവസ്തുശാസ്ത്രം, ഭാഷാശാസ്ത്രം-- Have you systematically studied any of these areas?
Let the “educated readers from all over the world” decide whose arguments are more rational and scientific.
RESPONSE 12: This is what i wrote in my last post.
What i can conclude now is that you don't have relevant knowledge in any areas (ജീവശാസ്ത്രം, ഗോളശാസ്ത്രം, തത്ത്വചിന്ത, മനഃശാസ്ത്രം, രാഷ്ട്രമീമാംസ, മാധ്യമപഠനം, പുരാവസ്തുശാസ്ത്രം, ഭാഷാശാസ്ത്രം) as you claim and worse part is you don't even understand that you are trying to prove which cannot be proved for logical reasons. The scientific evidence only drives the nail in coffin further.
I can very confidently say after these three long exchanges that even if you have knowledge in these areas as you claim, i don't see how much of that is relevant to this discussion.
Rest is left for readers to decide who (ലോകോത്തര നിരീശ്വരവാദ ബുദ്ധിജീവിയായ ഡോക്കിന്സിന്റെ ഒരു കൃതിയെ തന്നെ ഖണ്ഡിക്കാന് ഇറങ്ങിത്തിരിച്ച താങ്കളോ അതോ വഴി മുടക്കിയ നഴ്സറിപ്പയ്യനോ) is better informed and also logically consistent.